The End of Democracy – and How to Fight It

What Democracy Really Means

Democracy means rule by the people. This statement, as well known as it is often misunderstood, still captures the essence of what democracies are based on: the will of the people and their right to self-determination. But the will of the people alone is not enough. Democracy extends beyond institutions and elections. It shapes political debates and the everyday lives of people living within democratic systems. In this sense, democracy is not merely a form of government; it becomes a defining feature of the entire political order.

The Tension Between Freedom and Equality

In many of today’s established democracies, the concept of democracy originally carried revolutionary connotations. The demand for democracy was closely linked to demands for social justice and equality. Democracies have always existed within this tension between equality and freedom. Yet equality in democratic systems does not mean equality of wealth, as in socialist or communist models. Rather, it refers to liberation from material hardship and the ability to live without constant economic insecurity. At the same time, citizens must be free from paternalism in order to participate in democratic life as responsible individuals. Equality, therefore, is not a contradiction to pluralism in democracies.

The Cultural Foundations of Democracy

A democratic culture produces democrats. Education, civic virtues, festivals, public celebrations, shared public spaces, community life, traditions and a sense of belonging are all essential foundations upon which democracies are built. As Müller writes, democracies would remain empty promises if material security and a sense of community did not complement and reinforce each other. This solidarity promises relative prosperity through the overcoming of material and social fragmentation and therefore plays a unifying role. Democracy becomes a community of shared gains in which economic growth can satisfy social demands and thus guarantee stability (Müller 2014). Such stability is rooted in widespread convictions within the population: in everyday life, in habits and routines, in education and traditions passed down through generations that together form a democratic political culture. Democracy thus becomes both an everyday experience and a collective expectation.

Signs of a Structural Shift

So far so good. Yet for some time now, we have been observing a shift within this structure. Many people—experts and non-experts alike—predict the end of democracy, partly because the interplay between self-determination, prosperity and social cohesion no longer seems to function as it once did. People appear less loyal to democracy and increasingly loyal primarily to themselves. Especially during periods of economic stagnation and inflation, a retreat into the private sphere can be observed. Disappointment with politics drove people into their homes and families in earlier periods of history. Today is no different.

Why Loyalty Matters

Yet loyalty to the system rather than solely to oneself constitutes a central value in democracy (Linz/Stepan 1978). Democratic governments must be able to rely on the loyalty of citizens as well as that of civil servants, state employees, bureaucrats, police officers and the military. Closely connected to loyalty is faith in the system—the citizens’ consent to be governed and their belief in the benefits the system provides.

Democracies depend on the support of the population and on concessions made in favor of the common good. Of course, in any democracy not all citizens consider the system legitimate. However, the majority typically does. Even the opposition usually remains loyal to the system. The belief that existing political institutions are preferable to any alternatives fosters obedience and loyal recognition of the system.

Legitimacy and the Democratic System

Current political developments or the performance of a particular government play a secondary role in this context. What matters is the broader framework (Linz/Stepan 1978). Change is possible within the system—through elections, through fair political competition, and through the peaceful support of the majority of the population. For this to work, all participants—voters, candidates and elected officials—must support the democratic framework. This form of legitimacy rests on the belief that democracy is the least harmful system on which the majority of the population can agree. No alternative system appears more capable of achieving common goals.

Democracy is not free of conflict. Yet the reduction of inequality often matters more for its stability than the existence of conflict itself. As long as citizens perceive a degree of fairness and shared benefit, a sense of loyalty to the system persists.

When Democracies Become Ineffective

Political failure on the part of those in power—particularly regarding socio-economic issues such as equality, social justice and the reduction of material insecurity—plays a decisive role in shaping loyalty and legitimacy. If governments fail to rule effectively, if they cannot find solutions beneficial to society, if promised measures are not implemented or are only partially realized, and if the expected results do not materialize, the system appears ineffective.

Democracies inevitably raise expectations—and they disappoint citizens when these expectations remain unmet. In such cases, citizens either lower their expectations or turn away from the democratic system itself.

Rising Inequality and Social Fragmentation

This appears to be what we are currently witnessing: a growing disengagement from democracy. Increasing inequality contributes significantly to this process. Inequality fosters social isolation, particularly when economic and political power becomes concentrated in a small segment of society that increasingly separates itself from the rest. The sense of collective belonging—the feeling of “we”—begins to fade. Müller noted in 2014 that those born around 1985 represent the first cohort in a century that is not wealthier than those born ten years earlier (Müller 2014).

As dissatisfaction grows, people perceive the system as inefficient. They expect solutions, but these solutions increasingly appear to come not from the democratic system itself but from alternative political forces. Democracy thereby becomes less resilient and less stable.

Efficiency, Effectiveness and Stability

Linz and Stepan likewise identify a connection between loyalty to democracy and the effectiveness and efficiency of the political system. The closer and more positive the relationship between these three variables, the more stable and successful the system becomes (Linz/Stepan 1978). Effectiveness refers to the ability of those in power to find solutions that benefit society. Announced policies must be implemented and must produce the expected outcomes. Effectiveness becomes visible in the resilience and stability of the system and can be measured through long-term societal benefits and public satisfaction. The majority of the population remains the key indicator of effectiveness and trust in the system.

Efficiency, on the other hand, serves as the yardstick for success or failure, shaping expectations, satisfaction and ultimately the authority of the democratic system. Persistent inefficiency can encourage illegitimate resistance to government decisions.

Mistakes as a Democratic Feature

This does not mean that democracies are efficient because they avoid mistakes. On the contrary, the continual process of making mistakes and correcting them is a defining feature of democratic systems, as Tocqueville already emphasized in the nineteenth century.

Citizens can tolerate mistakes; they do not automatically destroy faith in democracy. What matters is how those in power respond to them.

Loyal, Semi-Loyal and Disloyal Opposition

Within this framework, political actors position themselves along a spectrum of loyal opposition, semi-loyal opposition and disloyal opposition (Linz/Stepan 1978). Loyal opposition is not a threat to democracy; rather, it is an essential component of democratic pluralism. It enables diversity of opinion and meaningful political choice. Without it, democracy would not exist. Semi-loyal opposition is more difficult to identify. Often it only becomes clear in retrospect who belonged to this category and when. Yet this group is particularly important when considering threats to democratic stability. Disloyal opposition also exists in every democracy, since no political system is entirely free of opponents. However, democratic systems usually contain mechanisms that limit their influence.

The Danger of Semi-Loyal Opposition

At present, disloyal opposition has not yet gained the upper hand in many Western democracies. Instead, the greatest threat often comes from semi-loyal opposition. The confrontation between this group and its opponents creates a critical mass that can either preserve the democratic system or contribute to its collapse. The crucial question therefore becomes: at what point does the critical mass of semi-loyal opponents tip the balance?

The Fragile Link Between Democracy and the Welfare State

Inefficiency and ineffectiveness play a particularly important role. Politics may fail to solve pressing economic, social and political problems. Democracy and the welfare state are closely intertwined. Alongside social insurance, healthcare systems and other institutions of social democracy, they also provide cultural opportunities, education and a vibrant public sphere. Democracy is active and participatory. If this combination begins to falter, disunity and dissatisfaction emerge within society. Social injustice can grow to a degree that becomes life-threatening for democratic systems. The link between democracy and the welfare state, once considered stable, suddenly appears fragile (Müller 2014).

When Elites and Citizens Drift Apart

At the same time, social isolation increases. Economic and political power becomes increasingly concentrated in a small segment of the population that distances itself from the rest of society. Deep divisions and sharp politicization among elites may ultimately contribute to democratic collapse through the mobilization and instrumentalization of the population. Citizens must retain the ability to participate in fundamental decisions—this remains a central democratic principle. If crucial issues are addressed only by experts while the electorate is expected merely to approve their decisions, democracy itself comes under pressure. What remains is little more than the illusion of democratic rights (Nolte 2011).

How Democracies Collapse

For a democracy to collapse, at least one—and often two—disloyal oppositions must emerge within the political system (Linz/Stepan 1978). If these positions receive significant support from the population, semi-loyal actors can gradually shift toward open disloyalty. As polarization increases, those who remain loyal to democracy may become isolated. Ambiguity and uncertainty enable semi-loyal opposition to transform moral judgments into accusations against democratic actors themselves. Under such conditions, the balance can shift. Democracy’s ability to withstand crises weakens, making it more vulnerable to authoritarian attacks.

What Democracies Need to Survive

At this point, the earlier tension between equality and freedom re-enters the argument. In democratic systems, both values compete for prominence. At times the liberal dimension dominates; at other times the democratic one. Yet only when equality—understood as social justice, freedom from material insecurity and the absence of paternalism—prevails can citizens fully devote themselves to democratic participation.

History demonstrates that the survival of democracies can never be taken for granted. Democracies must constantly adapt, reinvent themselves and respond creatively to new challenges. Citizens must understand both what democracies can achieve and what they cannot.

But there is one element democracies cannot function without: democrats who support them.

Conclusion: Taking Care of Democracy

Democracies are not responsible for every personal disappointment, every unresolved trauma or every decline in living standards experienced by citizens. Nor can they compensate for all of these. Nevertheless, these factors remain closely interconnected.

If we want to preserve Western democracies, several steps are necessary: an end to paternalism—however well intentioned it may be—combined with a renewed commitment to social justice and equality in the sense of freedom from material insecurity. Only under these conditions can citizens fulfill their essential role: taking care of democracy itself.

References

Linz, Juan J.; Stepan, Alfred (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Müller, Tim B. (2014): Nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg,  Lebensversuche moderner Demokratien, Bonn.

Nolte, Paul (2011): Von der repräsentativen zur multiplen Demokratie, in: APuZ(Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte) 1 – 2/ 2011, S. 5-12.

The essay was submitted to several journals and magazines for publication in this or a more academic form. Unfortunately, it has not been published yet. However, as I consider the topic to be so important, I am now publishing a shortened blog version of my text here.

Berlin, Reichstagsgebäude.